Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 614
High Court Of Calcutta
P. K. BISWAS
JHARESWARI MOHAPATRA - Appellant
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR MAHAPATRA - Respondent
S. A. 179 Of 1979
Decided On : 09/13/2002
ASHOK KUMAR JANA, BINEETA BHATTACHARYA, CHANDRA SEKHAR DAS, PRABAKAR JANA
In a case of undue influence, the burden of proof rests upon the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a person in a fiduciary relationship to establish that the said document was entered into by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction.
Headnote:
GIFT DEED - UNDUE INFLUENCE - SECTION 16 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT - PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 111 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - RELATIONSHIP OF FIDUCIARY TRUST - MENTAL AND CONSCIOUS ACT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, an illiterate village woman, filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction, alleging that the deed of gift executed by her in favor of her eldest daughter was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, and undue influence. The defendant claimed that the gift was made out of love and affection and that she was in possession of the suit property after the execution of the deed of gift.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court found that the deed of gift was not the mental and conscious act of the plaintiff and that it was obtained by undue influence exercised by the defendant and her husband.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned deed of gift was the mental and conscious act of the plaintiff. 2. Whether the deed was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, and undue influence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had established a case of undue influence by proving that: (a) the defendant and her husband were in a position to dominate the will of the plaintiff; and (b) the position was used to obtain an unfair advantage. 2. The court relied on the provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that the burden of proof rested upon the defendant to establish that the deed of gift was entered into by the plaintiff after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction. 3. The court found that the defendant had failed to discharge the burden of proof and that the deed of gift was therefore void.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower courts were affirmed.
( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1978 passed by Sri A. K. Chakraborty, the learned Additional District Judge at Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 139 of 1977 affirming those dated 30th May, 1977 passed by Sri R. K. Ghose, Munsif at Danton in Title Suit No. 70 of 1974. The suit before the lower Court was filed seeking for declaration and injunction. The trial Judge after contested hearing was pleased to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and accordingly granted decree for declaration and permanent injunction in his favour.
( 2 ) THE substantial question of law for determination of the present appeal was formulated as under:--"whether or not, the impugned deed of gift, allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1 was the mental and conscious act of the plaintiff and as to whether said deed was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and undue influence or not. "
( 3 ) FOR the purpose of the present appeal, the case appearing in the plaint may be summarised as follows:--
( 4 ) THE plaintiff Kshema Dasi is an aged illiterate village woman. The property described in the schedule 'ka' to the plaint belonged to her husband. The plaintiff has three daughters and all are married and defendant No. 1, Jhareswari, her eldest daughter was married in the same village with Bidyadhar Mahapatra, since deceased. The second daughter, Shantamani lost her husband soon after marriage and has no issue. The youngest daughter Churamani too is married and lives at her husband's place.
( 5 ) IN Aswin 1378 B. S. Bidyadhar requested plaintiff through defendant No. 1 for a loan of Rs. 500/- but since the plaintiff had not so much of money with her she agreed to sell some lands to acquire the money required by her son-in-law, Bidyadhar. The plaintiff then asked Bidyadhar to arrange for sale of land and then Bidyadhar settled to sell 'ga' schedule lands to defendant No. 2 for consideration money of Rs. 800/ -. So, the plaintiff was taken to Dantan Sub-Registry Office. There at the Sub-Registry Office the illiterate plaintiff put her thumb impression and on some papers on the plea that she was executing the sale deed. Out of the consideration money of Rs. 800/-, Rs. 500/- was paid to Bidyadhar and balance amount was handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had an implicit faith on her eldest son-in-law Bidyadhar who died subsequently in 1378 B. S. In Ashar 1381 B. S. defendant No. 3 Debendra came to possess the suit land described in Schedule Kha. He then disclosed that he had purchased the said property from defendant No. 1 Jhareswari who got the same from the plaintiff by virtue of deed of gift. At that time he further disclosed that the plaintiff had executed a deed of gift covering 'ka' schedule properties in favour of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff, thereafter, enquired from defendant No. 1 who affirmed and admitted sale of land of khas schedule to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff thereafter obtained the certified copy of the deed of gift.
( 6 ) IT was further alleged by the plaintiff that she never consented for execution of any deed of gift nor she intended to make any gift of 'ka' schedule land to defendant No. 1 and it was further alleged by her that Bidyadhar, the son-in-law in collusion with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and other witnesses and scribe to the deed had obtained the impugned deed of gift in favour of defendant No. 1 by exercising fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. It was further alleged by her that the contents of the impugned deed were never read over to her and she did not understand the contents of such deed. It was only represented to her that she was executing the sale deed. So, the plaintiff has come up with the suit praying for declaration that the impugned deed of gift dated 8. 10. 1972 and the sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 3 dated 23. 5. 1972 are null and void, inoperative and
